RE: [xtm-wg] TM Structure Template; and Request for Association T ypes

["Wrightson, Ann" <Ann.Wrightson@sweetandmaxwell.co.uk>]

My understanding is that the abstract model allows topics to be connected in
an arbitrary directed network (when you take into account scoping etc).
Possible synonyms for pieces of this network (i.e. having alternative
interpretations of (sub)structures within this network as TM scoping,
associations etc) is something I remember a brief conversation about at
Paris, but I don't think has been looked at more deeply. A
formal/mathematical analysis of the properties of associations, type
hierarchies etc within topic maps would indeed be useful - any volunteers?  

I also think that *applications* of topic maps should be very careful about
these structural issues, and take care that eg when they support searching
or subsetting functionality, that their TM structures are tractable for
these purposes (this is standard stuff in IR (information retrieval theory)
and DBMS design).

Cheers

Ann W.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrius Kulikauskas [mailto:ms@ms.lt]
Sent: 06 July 2000 00:13
To: xtm-wg@egroups.com; ourownthoughts@egroups.com
Subject: [xtm-wg] TM Structure Template; and Request for Association Types


Two requests, which I write more about below:
===> I would be very interested to know if anybody has done research
into the kinds of global structural constraints that are implicit within
association types (for example, that the associations of the given type
are expected to form a sequence, or an unordered tree, or a directed
network, etc.).
===> Please let me know of any lists of association types that I might
study. 


I am looking forward to participating in the XTM group.  I am not sure
yet if I will be able to attend in Montreal, but would like to.

Our laboratory, Minciu Sodas, www.ms.lt, is focusing on the development
of a standard that will allow individuals to import/export aggregates of
notes from software tools for organizing them, such as TheBrain,
www.thebrain.com, MindManager, www.mindmanager.com, Multicentrix,
www.multicentric.com, Thoughtstream, http://thoughtstream.org, Lucid,
www.memes.net  Our laboratory's emphasis is on the needs of the users of
such tools, so that they can work with their accumulated thoughts
regardless of environment, or at least be able to switch every few
months or so.

We have been working through the Infrared Data Association, but the IrDA
leadership has decided that we fall outside of their focus and that we
end our working group.  Our work so far is at:
http://www.ms.lt/importexport.html

I have to learn more about TopicMaps, but right now I think that they
are adequate for expressing our standard.  My only reservation so far is
that I think it would be simpler for us if associations were topics. 
But I presume there are work-arounds for this.  I will be focusing on
our particular needs, but I hope this may offer insights into how a
segment of the population, especially individuals, may use topic maps.

One thing that I have learned is that users of "thought organizers" need
is not so much an import/export format, but rather, a modeling
language.  The modeling language is a construct for understanding the
consequences of transforming (to greater or lesser satisfaction)
structured aggregates from one tool (user interface) to another tool
(user interface).  The modeling language should be expressed in more
than one format, for example, XML, CORBA, Excel...  If it is expressed
in only one format, then the format will be confused with the modeling
language, which conceptually can be disastrous, confusing both the user
and any assisting programmer.

I feel more comfortable with Topic Maps upon realizing that it, too, is
really both a modeling language (a way of structuring how we think about
our information) and a format (HyTime, XTM, ...)  I think it is crucial
to separate the two aspects, and I get the impression that this is being
done.  It may be very convenient for us to describe our modeling
language as a subset of, or template within, the Topic Maps "modeling
language".

I would like to organize the creation of a Topic Maps Template that
would serve our needs, but might also have additional value.  My main
goal is to identify, and make available, the dozen or so "structural"
association types that occur in practice.  By structural association
type (perhaps you can suggest a better term - syntactic?), I mean that
when I make a structural link, it may presume some global structural
constraints.  For example, an X "IS A PART OF" Y association may presume
to be structurally part of a forest of such associations, where the
branches are unordered.  An X "IS IN" Y association may presume this
very same structural environment.  In our case, semantically, we are not
interested in the difference, at least not for our purposes, which is to
make sure that these structural constraints are made clear to the
author, and if desired, can be preserved.  In other words, there may be
thousands of types of semantic associations, but if we are only
interested in the structural implications, there may be as few as one or
two dozen structural associations to worry about (different kinds of
sequences, hierarchies, networks, etc.).  Users of tools for organizing
thoughts care about the structural associations, rather than the
semantic associations, because:
- Users use the structural environment the tool offers, that is, the
structural constraints it imposes, to shape their writing and thinking.
- Users do not have the time, energy or interest to mark up or otherwise
tend to their robustly multiplying thoughts.
- The ideas most worth writing down are typically the ones that we have
the least ability to express what we mean.  And it is very disruptive to
have to work with artificial categories which can destroy that meaning. 
- Users want to have the right to abuse tools, that is, use them for
strange purposes that their creators may not have semantically intended.

I will be making a list of such structural link types.  
===> I would be very interested to know if anybody has done such
research already.  Although my impression is that this has never been
done, I suppose it is considered too "simple".  However, I think that
before delving into the complications of semantic relationships it would
be a helpful first step to identify the kinds of structural
relationships that arise, which seem quite limited.  This is especially
helpful for the kind of import/export of aggregates of thoughts that we
would like to enable.

If the research has not yet been done, then I would like to do it very
simply.
===> Please let me know of any lists of association types that I might
study.  I will go through these lists and try to figure out the
structural constraints that come up.  I will be glad to share my results
in the public domain.

I will write more about the Topic Maps Template I have in mind.

Yours,

Andrius Kulikauskas
Director
Minciu Sodas
http://www.ms.lt/importexport.html
ms@ms.lt
+370 (2) 60-67-38



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create professional forms and interactive web pages in less time 
with Mozquito(tm) technology.
Form the Web today - visit:
http://click.egroups.com/1/6342/4/_/337252/_/962839027/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Add the interactive dimension to your web pages.
Use the MozquitoTM Factory with your editor and form the web today! 
Form the Web today - visit:
http://click.egroups.com/1/6343/4/_/337252/_/962880699/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com